• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Is the US a two party state

Nihilianth said:
That's been my point all along, and expanded upon your clearer argument in my posts #95, 99, and 100.

The system is the body of laws that establishes the manner and processes of how we vote.

Hence:

"Fist Past the Post" or "winner-take all" is the system.

Having only two major parties that win most elections is the result

It would be like calling CO2 as "system" It isn't a "system' at all. It's singular (or plural) standalone noun.

Respiration is a system that results in the release of CO2 by living, oxygen-breathing organisms through a natural process. To interchange "CO2" and "respiration" with eachother is incorrect. You don't call respiration a "CO2 system."

And finally, even though some people MAY call it a "two-party system," doesn't mean that's what it is; any more than how far too many people misuse the term "theory" to mean "just a guess." Or that North Korea is either "democratic" or is a "republic."
Click to expand...
Nope.

You're talking to a politics graduate. You're simply wrong here.

Nihilianth said:
And to answer, once again, MarkCorrigan's question about whether North Korea has a single party or not (which is irrelevant), its a single party. As I've stated before, it is a "One-Party SYSTEM," because it is decreed by law that only a single party shall exist, and that single party chooses who it's leader will be through whatever process they have established. It seems to be a dynastic process of leadership choice, as opposed to any sort of "democratic voting process."
Click to expand...
Nope. There are actually 3 parties currently in the North Korean government. Afterall, according to you the mere existence of other parties would mean North Korea isn't a one party state.

That the other two parties are basically slaves to the ruling party is surely irrelevant, they are after all separate parties, no?

Indeed, occasionally the main ruling party will lose a seat to one of the other two parties. Sometimes they lose dozens.
Nihilianth said:
The United States has no such body of law declaring only two major parties to exist and how those two parties choose our president. Therefore, it is neither "two-party," nor a "system." Especially considering that Independents DO have enough power to sway the Congress in decision-making in one direction or the other more often than not and can also affect the outcome of the presidential election.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You do not understand the terms you are using. A two party system means any voting system wherein only two parties are able to gain any meaningful representation. It does not mean "a system where only two parties exist by law". You're throwing a tantrum over the fact that you don't understand a political term that everyone else understands readily.
 
Nihilianth said:
Exactly right. It isn't a "system." It's the RESULT of an actual system called First Past the Post voting.

This is a red herring. These analogies are comparing apples to oranges here.

You people are trying to describe the result that is two primary parties that have a realistic chance of winning presidential elections as a "system," when it isn't a "system." It's just the result of the system that's actually called "first past the post," or more colloquially called "winner take all."

You are trying to say something like: "car shifting gear because I moved a stick," which is just the result of how you operate a standard transmission vehicle, in place of calling it a "standard transmission," which is what it IS.

And btw, there is a reason that professional drivers (such as myself; I'm a truck driver), and mechanics prefer to call it "standard" as opposed to "manual." The term "standard transmission" is more precise and meaningful.

Like I said in my previous post at the end of it, it's better for those who actually know better, to more precisely call it what it actually is. Not the result. You can then define "two major parties" as the result of FPTP. Then it's easier to segue your way into defining why it is a problem, how it results in the problem, and finally how to fix the problem.
Click to expand...
Not apples and oranges, I was comparing one ridiculously pedantic stance with other similarily pedantic stances.

As for the rest of your post, okay, let's say I agreed with all of that. Should we also start calling strawberries strawfruit because they're actually fruit, not berries, or do you agree that language maybe doesn't have to 110% anal-retentive at all times? Or, if we're going to be really pedantic, which seems to be the theme for this thread, we need to call them strawaggregatefruits because the actual fruit is the tiny 'seeds' on the outside of the berry.
 
arthwollipot said:
Depending on your definition of "system". In the first, it means "general pattern of things". In the second it means "formal set of rules of operation". English is like that sometimes.
Click to expand...
Why can't it be conforming to the first meaning when we say "two-party system"?
 
Often, on the internet I find myself asking, "Why do you care so much about this?" Sometimes, I ask that of myself.
 
Nihilianth said:
That's been my point all along, and expanded upon your clearer argument in my posts #95, 99, and 100.

The system is the body of laws that establishes the manner and processes of how we vote.

Hence:

"Fist Past the Post" or "winner-take all" is the system.

Having only two major parties that win most elections is the result

It would be like calling CO2 as "system" It isn't a "system' at all. It's singular (or plural) standalone noun.

Respiration is a system that results in the release of CO2 by living, oxygen-breathing organisms through a natural process. To interchange "CO2" and "respiration" with eachother is incorrect. You don't call respiration a "CO2 system."

And finally, even though some people MAY call it a "two-party system," doesn't mean that's what it is; any more than how far too many people misuse the term "theory" to mean "just a guess." Or that North Korea is either "democratic" or is a "republic."

And to answer, once again, MarkCorrigan's question about whether North Korea has a single party or not (which is irrelevant), its a single party. As I've stated before, it is a "One-Party SYSTEM," because it is decreed by law that only a single party shall exist, and that single party chooses who it's leader will be through whatever process they have established. It seems to be a dynastic process of leadership choice, as opposed to any sort of "democratic voting process."

The United States has no such body of law declaring only two major parties to exist and how those two parties choose our president. Therefore, it is neither "two-party," nor a "system." Especially considering that Independents DO have enough power to sway the Congress in decision-making in one direction or the other more often than not and can also affect the outcome of the presidential election.
Click to expand...
The following is what it's like arguing with you:

On multiple occasions, you have stated that there are multiple political parties within the United States, and that these parties have sway over how the government functions. While there are countless celebratory events every year in this country (at least a few of which are likely political in nature), you are clearly operating under a gross misapprehension in which you believe that these social gatherings can win elections. Perhaps you meant to say political organizations win elections. I have no idea why you insist on using an incorrect term.

Furthermore, you have stated that we have a "first past the post" system. I have done extensive research on political victories throughout the history of the United States, and not once has this competition been in the nature of a race (either on foot, in a vehicle, or on an animal), nor has there been any mention of the victor being declared by being the first one to cross a post, gate, or finish line of any sort. Where, pray tell, is this mythical post? How long is the race? Where can I find candidates' finish times?

I implore you to henceforth use your terms in a strictly accurate manner. As we are all aware, every single word in the English dictionary has precisely one definition, and any deviation therewith is a matter of factual inaccuracy. Good day.
 
I Am The Scum said:
The following is what it's like arguing with you:

On multiple occasions, you have stated that there are multiple political parties within the United States, and that these parties have sway over how the government functions.
Click to expand...
Show me where I said that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom